Barack Obama Attacks Christian Conservatives
June 24th, 2007 by Peter
The first thing to jump out at me in the Courant’s front page story on presidential candidate Barack Obama’s speech to the UCC synod in Hartford is this pull-out quote alongside the main article:
Doing the Lord’s work is a thread that’s run though our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America means faith should have no role in public life.
Ohmigosh! Did Sen. Obama really say that?!! Is he a Christianist? A Theocon? Doesn’t he know that sort of talk is a dire threat to our Constitution, that it will lead to theocracy, that we’ll have a Christian Taliban in the White House, that, that….
But then I read further. Ah, not to worry. Yes, Obama’s a Christian, but he’s not–well, you know–one of those Christians:
“Faith got hijacked,” Obama said. “Partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us. At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.”
So faith should have a role in public life so long as that role does no harm to the Democrats at election time. Got it.
Except that Obama is peddling one of the cultural Left’s most deeply held lies here. Christian conservatives are not the aggressors in America’s culture wars, we’re the ones playing defense–a point made repeatedly in response to critics in this blog’s threads:
It’s also no coincidence that those asking us to turn our attention from abortion and same-sex “marriage” are usually the same folks who actively support those things. I’m sure they would like us to get out of their way. Here’s my counter-suggestion to them: stop supporting the legal destruction of the unborn and the redefinition of marriage and after we restore legal protection to the unborn and pass a federal marriage amendment we pro-lifers will be happy to turn more of our energy to other causes. Any takers on the Left? I didn’t think so…
What we’re truly “guilty” of–in the eyes of the Left, anyway–is pushing back instead of just rolling over and saying “hey, whatever radical new thing you’ve cooked up is fine with us; we won’t resist.”
The cultural Left thinks the grassroots rebellion that has risen up against their assaults on faith and family is simply the result of “so-called leaders” cynically manipulating a malleable public. That says more about the Left’s own low regard for their fellow Americans than they realize. As much as they would like to project their own disdainful view of the public on to us, though, their own words frequently give them away:
“My biggest motive for supporting Obama is that we need a model for inner city youth. They’re all doing drugs and going to jail, and Obama will give them something better to follow.”
Really? They’re all doing drugs and going to jail? Can you imagine the reaction if a supporter of a Republican candidate were quoted saying this? And “Obama will give them something better to follow”? Tell me again now, who’s the “so-called leader” who’s “eager to exploit” the public?
But this is nothing new for the Left. They’ve been accidentally revealing their true opinion of the public all along, including here on FIC Blog:
The GOP will never end abortion. It’s a sucker’s game, (Mitt Romney,….), simply b/c the electoral backlash would be tremendous. But hey, anything that gets poor and ignorant people to vote against their financial self-interest!
“Poor and ignorant people.” There you have it, folks. If you are against abortion and same-sex “marriage,” that’s what the cultural Left thinks of you. And they have the gall to wonder why you’re not voting for them.
You got to be kidding me right?? Please tell me that you wrote this blog as entertainment. You know its about time SOMEONE, stood up to the folks that only during election time petition to have the “same-sex marriage and abortion” admenments added to ballots in states that pivotal in boasting the Republican Parties ticket. I mean that trick has become played out. Thier’s a saying, “Fool me once shame on you fool me twice same on me.” Well the American public has been fooled long enough!! Barack was right on point with his defense and now I support him even stronger and will make it my goal to recurit at least 5 people a day through any means and do the math 5PEOPLE X # of DAYS before Election = A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE!!
Ah. It would seem FIC’s slip is showing… and we catch a glimpse of their true agenda, which is political rather than religious.
Did you really just use the random person in the crowd that the Courant chose to interview as the “voice” of the “left”?
Did you really just not notice that I also quoted Obama and one of your fellow liberal bloggers?
tomie:
I can’t speak for FIC here, but it would seem obvious that FIC’s agenda is political. If you understand the definition of the word politics this is clear. Wikipedia says it pithily: Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups.
FIC is not a religious organization, it is a political one. It arouses controversy, however, because it provides a platform for political action among people who do not believe in the legitimization of deviant behavior and the destruction of the family as it has been traditionally understood in American society.
Religion doesn’t belong in politics because religion talks about how one should live their life. When those two are mixed, you end up telling people how to live their lives, regardless of religious and cultural affiliation. One has to realize that the christian way isn‘t always the right way to others. As long as some values aren’t harmful socially, economically, or morally, those values can’t be bad.
Nick,
Then FIC should stop using religion to further a political agenda.
Peter:
Really? They’re all doing drugs and going to jail? Can you imagine the reaction if a supporter of a Republican candidate were quoted saying this? And “Obama will give them something better to follow”? Tell me again now, who’s the “so-called leader” who’s “eager to exploit” the public?
Those are our own words?
Sorry, blockquotes don’t like to be nested apparently…
Hey!
Thanks for quoting me. If you can’t find some common ground with even Barack Obama, …. well, I stand by my assertion that you are acting as an intentional/or unintentional tool of the Paris Hilton rich.
And I stand by my assertion that the GOP will never put an end to the practice of abortion. Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, etc have all advocated for the pro-choice position, despite their primary-eve transformations.
That is why most of us who are die hard prolifers will not ever vote for Guiliani, Romney, or McCain. Thompson is not prochoice…his record is prolife, although he has made some comments in the past that are not as prolife as we would wish.
Opal
tomie,
You seem to be making the current, trendy (but non-historical and anti-American) argument that people of faith are not entitled to participate in politics if their faith informs their politics.
American society was undergirded by a Christian consensus that shaped morality – public as well as private morality – until well into the 20th century. This is why Congress refused to allow Utah to join the Union until Utah banned polygamy.
I could easily, and with more justification, turn your statement on its head and argue instead that people should stop using anti-religion or non-biblical systems of belief to further a political agenda. After all, anti-religious and anti-Christian systems of government have proven to be the most brutal, oppressive, and bloodthirsty of all. If history were still taught, more people would know that these philosophies are the destructive of human rights.
We need only look at the tens of millions of victims of Nazism, Communism and Islamic jihads to know this is so.
You want to start that fight? You got it.
Islamic fundamentalist states. Iran. Mussolini’s Italy (blessed by the Pope!). Christian defense of slavery and segregation in the South. Tsarist Russia. Wars of religion everywhere, all the time, from Islamic conquests to Crusades to the Thirty Years’ War to what’s happening in Iraq right now (Shia v. Sunni). The Spanish Inquisition. Imperial Germany (Gott Mit Uns!). Hitler’s very Christian-informed war against the Jews. Heck, all pogroms against the Jews. Persecution of heretics. Bloody Mary. Bosnia (Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosniaks). Kosovo. Chechnya. RELIGION.
A strong argument can be made that Stalin, who officially abhorred religion, made himself into an object of religious worship. The religious imagery in Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Il’s propaganda is quite stunning, and all used religion to further their aims.
For “Christian” systems of government, see Europe’s long history of absolute monarchies blessed by God, the despicable absolutism of the Papal States, witch burnings in New England and Calvin’s reign of terror in Geneva. Among others. Meanwhile, secular deists like Jefferson wrote our Constitution, and it was the values of the Enlightenment which informed the basic rights we enjoy today.
Religion can do a lot of good, but don’t you dare give me the nonsense that “Christian” forms of government are best. They are not, and I will do everything I can to see that one does not come to pass in my country.
and the Inquistion? and the Crusades? and the massacre of the majority of the Native Americans by good “christian” colonists. And the deaths of both Protestants and people of the Roman church in Ireland. And various Christian sects that have faced violence and death at the hands of the “true Christians”. The ONLY thing that is holding the sadochristian right back in this country from practicing the same vile murder is the fact that they know the majority would not put up with it. Hope that lasts…
Let’s not forget that, according to the teachings of scripture, before there was war upon the earth first there was war in heaven – the fundamental conflict between good and evil that predates human existence, and which will continue until the end times and the return of Christ our Savior.
The counter-argument to Nick’s assertion, on the basis that bloody and unjust wars have been fought even by those claiming to be called of God, entirely misses the point that all of mankind continues to this day to be fallen into a state of sin.
Yes, numerous wars have been fought throughout history by people of diverse faiths, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion. Wars have also been fought by people who eschewed past religious traditions, including those who established themselves as virtual gods among men (e.g. dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who made themselves objects of worship).
The act of war itself is not a uniquely religious or unreligious construct, but merely a reflection of the broken and fallen nature of our world. Are wars fought in any greater proportion by the religious or unreligious? Or do the occurrences of war among the religious and unreligious simply correspond to their relative numbers within the population of the earth? That we can recount so many wars involving Christianity may simply be a consequence of its profound influence in Western culture during the past 2000 years, and not a sign that is particularly better or worse at avoiding conflict than others.
What I believe we ought to learn from this litany of sorrow is that none of us are immune to the influence of sin. Neither are we immune to being held accountable for our actions at the final judgment by Almighty God. Those who mistakenly believe their actions are beyond reproach, whether from a repudiation of God’s sovereignty or from a mistaken understanding of His law, are all the more likely to wage war in a brutal fashion. To the extent that men avow the existence of a higher moral authority than themselves, there is at least some hope that their combative actions may exhibit some degree of restraint and mercy.
Genghis,
I said “anti-religious” and “anti-Christian” governments are bad as they are fundamentally anti-human.
However, I did not say Christian forms of government are the based as there is no Christian form of government and will be none until Jesus Christ returns.
There may be governments informed by Christian values, however.
You gave us a laundry list that proves nothing other than that human beings pervert what God says. That Imperial Germany (or Nazi Germany) or Tsarist Russia wrapped itself in the mantle of Christ proves nothing. I’m sure all thinking persons recognize these as perversions of Christianity’s message.
The so-called Enlightenment did not give us American liberties; the Enlightment can ultimately never do anything except give us a French-style revolution. American liberties exist because a nearly monoculture Protestant society enshrined Reformation values upholding the dignity of the individual. Because people are no longer taught about the Reformation this knowledge is largely lost, as is the understanding it brought about Man’s depravity and the need for systems of checks and balances.
All systems of thought which have since arisen by contrast emphasize (even deify) the State, although they utilize Christian rhetoric to conceal their true nature. The reason why American society “worked” in a political sense is that it was based on a Christian understanding of the fallen state of human beings, not a naive belief in Man’s inherent goodness.